132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Nov, 2014 08:25 pm
@farmerman,
Isn't it funny that the skeptics of evolution interpret geological findings that doesn't produce perfect sequence in their evolutionary change, but take their static bible with all its errors, omissions and contradictions as the 'word of god.'

They can begin explaining their young earth message from god's words, then prove with 'evidence' that their god exists.

That'll be the day 'the earth will stand still.' In other words; it'll never happen.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Mon 17 Nov, 2014 10:03 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
The mere fact that I'm asking for evidence shows I haven't categorically ruled it out.
      ... and what are you going 'to rule out', if it is not some secret ... and how did you come to know that you have acquired enough valid information and you are not missing key information in order 'to rule out' (whatever that might mean)?
Herald
 
  1  
Mon 17 Nov, 2014 10:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Just answer one question; prove your god exists with any credible evidence.
      ... and what about the case if this is unknowable?
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 17 Nov, 2014 11:07 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
The mere fact that I'm asking for evidence shows I haven't categorically ruled it out.
      ... and what are you going 'to rule out', if it is not some secret ... and how did you come to know that you have acquired enough valid information and you are not missing key information in order 'to rule out' (whatever that might mean)?


In accordance with what the most highly developed intellects of our species have figured out, I'm going to rule out anything that's asserted without evidence. Which is all you got.
FBM
 
  1  
Mon 17 Nov, 2014 11:44 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
The mere fact that I'm asking for evidence shows I haven't categorically ruled it out.
      ... and what are you going 'to rule out', if it is not some secret ... and how did you come to know that you have acquired enough valid information and you are not missing key information in order 'to rule out' (whatever that might mean)?



[Edit]

In accordance with what the most highly developed intellects of our species have figured out, I'm going to rule out [as having been proven true] anything that's asserted without evidence. Which is all you got.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 12:46 am
@FBM,
Quote:
In accordance with what the most highly developed intellects of our species have figured out


Who are they then?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 01:55 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Definitely not you, especially after your years of "research" in the looniest corners of nutball conspiracy theories, and completely uncritical acceptance of the most evidence-free of them.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 02:28 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Definitely not you, especially after your years of "research" in the looniest corners of nutball conspiracy theories, and completely uncritical acceptance of the most evidence-free of them.



Ahhhh, trying Ad Hominems again?

uncritical??? lol Good one, like it!

Nice try, doesn't work though.


And..you haven't answered my question.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 03:14 am
Here's some grist for the mill; (quote) If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of `evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened- processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree.

And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time, then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult enough to believe, without stretching them any further. (end quote)
FBM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 04:31 am
@Builder,
Quote:

...If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of `evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened- processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree.

And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time, then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult enough to believe, without stretching them any further.


http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/535917_4688307301380_2905972891769669721_n.jpg
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 04:40 am
@Builder,
some simple animals and many plants can reproduce sexually AND asexually(all in the same species).

We often take vegetative "cuttings" of plant tissue all the time and many trees can propogate offspring by just spalling off parts of bark or branches. Some of the earliest gymnosperms were self fertilizing.

There are some animals that have multiple pathways of breeding such as parthenogenesis or fission.

So , even sexual reproduction, while a later entry, doesn't stop everything by not being timed right. Many times the whole thing is overcome by the organisms producing huge amounts of eggs (seed, spores,sperm etc) and "taking their chances"


Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 04:54 am
@FBM,
Bit you can't explain WHY of course?

Hmmmm, figures.

Goes against your belief system, right? Wink Of course you don't like the conclusion.


Too bad mate, much more is coming!!!


Evolution is really obsolete!

0 Replies
 
dylanG
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 05:30 am
@edgarblythe,
totally agree with that, mother nature in cooperation with extrasensory powers works fine for me:)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 11:40 am
@MontereyJack,
Until they answer one simple question, their questions are only diversions.

Children will play.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 01:55 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
In accordance with what the most highly developed intellects of our species have figured out.
    Just a second - how did you come to know that the intellects are 'highly developed' ... and are not comprising a derivative or constrains of a higher universal super-intelligence - call it String Theory, call it God, call it as you like. From where you 'know' all that? If you can have hyperspace, why can't you have hyper-intelligence - so and so both are unknowable.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 02:34 pm
@Herald,
If they are 'unknowable,' how can you believe in god? Where's your proof that god exists?

One simple question that you are unable to answer; even if you're offered a billion dollars.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 02:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If they are 'unknowable,' how can you believe in god? Where's your proof that god exists?

One simple question that you are unable to answer; even if you're offered a billion dollars.


If someone good pay billion dollars for intermediate fossils 'they' still can't deliver! It is hilarious!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 04:50 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Fossils (bones) deteriorate depending on environment and time. That's a conclusion that can be reached without understanding science or religion.

The bible continues to deteriorate with time as new facts are discovered about our environment.

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR GOD. One is plenty and sufficient.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 05:36 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
In accordance with what the most highly developed intellects of our species have figured out.
    Just a second - how did you come to know that the intellects are 'highly developed' ... and are not comprising a derivative or constrains of a higher universal super-intelligence - call it String Theory, call it God, call it as you like. From where you 'know' all that? If you can have hyperspace, why can't you have hyper-intelligence - so and so both are unknowable.



And without evidence, we may just as well claim that Rainbow Brite pooped us all out one morning after coffee. Heisenberg, Feynman, de Broglie, Einstein, Newton, et al, were obvioulsly a lot smarter than you. At least they knew that they had to start with empirical evidence before making any claims. You've got the cart before the horse, there. Come up with some evidence for your god and then we'll take you seriously.
0 Replies
 
sonichell
 
  2  
Tue 18 Nov, 2014 06:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I get my education from books, you should try it instead of wikipedia. The fossil record shows species stay around for millions of years, many for hundreeds of million years. Like the ginko plant. There are many theories that use different terms to explain why the 99.9% of species that are extinct do not show up in the fossil record and why these intermediate species are not around for millions of years. If you like you can call it punctuated equilibrium, steady state, stasis, climax community, take your pick. I suggest you research cladogenesis and phylectic gradualism. Try not to rely on wiki. So in your own words, why do you believe that similarities between species proves random mutation?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 05:34:40